Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 282285
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 12, 20262026-05-12T05:16:33+00:00 2026-05-12T05:16:33+00:00

According to various sources, attacks looking for sha-1 collisions have been improved to 2^52

  • 0

According to various sources, attacks looking for sha-1 collisions have been improved to 2^52 operations:

http://www.secureworks.com/research/blog/index.php/2009/6/3/sha-1-collision-attacks-now-252/

What I’d like to know is the implication of these discoveries on systems that are not under attack. Meaning if I hash random data, what are the statistical odds of a collision? Said another way, does the recent research indicate that a brute-force birthday attack has a higher chance of finding collisions that originally proposed?

Some writeups, like the one above, say that obtaining a SHA-1 collision via brute force would require 2^80 operations. Most sources say that 2^80 is a theoretical number (I assume because no hash function is really distributed perfectly even over its digest space).

So are any of the announced sha1 collision weaknesses in the fundamental hash distribution? Or are the increased odds of collision only the result of guided mathematical attacks?

I realize that in the end it is just a game of odds, and that their is an infinitesimally small change that your first and second messages will result in a collision. I also realize that even 2^52 is a really big number, but I still want to understand the implications for a system not under attack. So please don’t answer with “don’t worry about it”.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-12T05:16:33+00:00Added an answer on May 12, 2026 at 5:16 am

    The result announced in your link is an attack, a sequence of careful, algorithmically-chosen steps that generate collisions with greater probability than would a random attack. It is not a weakness in the hash function’s distribution. Well, ok, it is, but not of the sort that makes a random attack likely on the order of 2^52 to succeed.

    If no one is trying to generate collisions in your hash outputs, this result does not affect you.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

According to http://caniuse.com/script-defer , most browsers support the script tag's defer attribute. I would
According to https://developers.google.com/fusiontables/docs/developers_reference OR operations are not allowed as part of filter conditions. So
According to the tutorial : http://jpa.ezhibernate.com/Javacode/learn.jsp?tutorial=27hibernateloadvshibernateget , If you initialize a JavaBean instance with
According to various sources, SQL CE 2.x does not support any kind of clustered
According to a book I have (Eclipse for Minor Geniuses or something like that),
According to various soures, for a Qt4 app you build the release or debug
Do class destructors have names in the pedantic sense according to the Standard? Recall
According to various sourcess Linux at x86 tries to get rid of segmentation by
According to doc and various answers here git difftool will invoke the specified executable
Good Evening, I have been trying to implement a simple Android(tm) application that utilizes

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.